DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Preliminary Amendment The preliminary amendment submitted on 02 July 2024 has been entered. After entry of the amendment, claims 1-8, 11-12, 14-15, 31-32, 34, 74, 83, and 94-96 are currently pending in the application. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities : In claim 1, part (b), the term “surface” should be – furnace – . In claim 4, the term “triethanolamine” should be – triethanolamine – . In claim 5, line 3, the term “ wollast a nite ” should be – wollastonite –. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation In claim 1, the term “stonelike” is interpreted as it is described in paragraph [0040] of the specification (i.e. a material that visually, functionally and/or characteristically resembles stone). In claim 4 and 34, the claim is being interpreted as only requiring at least on e of the materials listed as the accelerating admixture as this seems to be in line with what is taught in the specification (paragraph s [0081] and [0097]) . If this is not what is intended applicant should state so on the record. Clarification is requested. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-8, 11-12, 14-15, 31-32, 34, 74, 83, and 94-96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 1, it is unclear as to the types of materials useful as the manmade pozzolan and the accelerant. According to claim 4, silica fume may be used as the accelerant however claim 6 recites that silica fume is used as the manmade pozzolan. Accordingly one component (i.e. silica fume) can meet both the manmade pozzolan and the accelerant and this leads to confusion. Claims in which one component is defined so broadly that it reads on a second, fail to meet the requirements of the second paragraph of 35 USC 112. See Ex parte Ferm et al 162 USPQ 504 . In claim 4, it is unclear as to the difference between an accelerant and an accelerating admixture. Note that claim 1 refers to an accelerant and this claim refers to an accelerating admixture. Clarification is requested. In claim 11, the phrase “the amount of nitrate” lacks proper antecedent basis. In claim 1 2 , the phrase “the amount of sulf ate” lacks proper antecedent basis. In claim 1 4 , the phrase “the amount of chloride ” lacks proper antecedent basis. In claim 1 5 , the phrase “the amount of phosphate ” lacks proper antecedent basis. In claim 3 4, it is unclear as to the difference between an accelerant and an accelerating admixture. Note that claim 3 1 refers to an accelerant and this claim refers to an accelerating admixture. Clarification is requested. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1, 5-7, 94-95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by McPherson (US Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0290154 A1) . The reference teaches, in Example 1, a composition produced by mixing white Portland cement, metakaolin, NYAD-G wollastonite, grey silica fume, Minusil-5 silica flour, glass pozzolan , water, Acryly-60 acrylic modifier, and a high-range water-reducer. After mixing a set accelerator was added. Paragraph [0039] teaches that a fluid cement was produced. See Table IV mix 460 which appears below: The instant claims are met by the reference. As for claim 1, Example 1, mix number 460, meets the claimed composition. The wollastonite meets the natural pozzolan. The metakaolin , silica fume and the glass pozzolan met the manmade pozzolan. The water meets the aqueous solution. The silica fume meets the accelerant as paragraph [0081] and [0097] recites silica fume as an example (see also the claim interpretation section). Based on the formation of a fluid cement and the recited water to cement ratio the composition is capable of being poured. As for claim 5, the reference teaches wollastonite. As for claim 6, the reference teaches metakaolin , silica fume and glass pozzolan. As for claim 7, the reference teaches that the composition is put in molds and then subjected to curing. As the composition is a fluid cement it would therefore be poured. As for claim 94, based on the components and the process steps, this claim is met. With re s pect to the formation of a negative-carbon dioxide emitting cementitious material that adsorbs and prevents the emission of carbon dioxide, since the reference teaches the use of the same components, this property is believed to be possessed by the material. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald , 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II. As for claim 95, this property is believed to be met by the composition of the reference as the composition is the same. Claim s 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas et al (US Patent No. 10,457,601 B2) . The reference teaches, in claim 1, a settable composition for cementing, the settable composition comprising (a) remediated fly ash, (b) cement and/or calcium hydroxide, and (c) optionally water, wherein said remediated fly ash contains fly ash and a natural pozzolan, wherein said natural pozzolan is present in said remediated fly ash in a concentration of about 1wt % to about 99wt % . Claim 4 recites that said natural pozzolan is selected from the group consisting of pumice, pumicite, perlite, volcanic ash, metakaolin, diatomaceous earth, silica fume, precipitated silica, colloidal silica, ignimbrites, vitrified calcium alumino -silicates, ground waste glass, calcined shale, calcined clay, zeolites . Claim 14 recites that s aid settable composition further comprises at least one additive selected from the group consisting of slag, crystalline silica, amorphous silica fume, fumed silica, sodium hydroxide, calcium chloride, sodium chloride, glass fiber, polymer fiber, hydratable clay, biomass ash, crushed glass, elastomers, polymer resins, latexes . Claim 15 recites that said settable composition further comprises at least one additive selected from the group consisting of a set retarding additive, a strength-retrogression additive, a set accelerator, a weighting agent, an aggregate, a lightweight additive, a gas-generating additive, a mechanical property enhancing additive, a lost-circulation material, a filtration-control additive, a dispersant, a fluid loss control additive, a defoaming agent, a foaming agent, an oil-swellable particle, a water-swellable particle, a thixotropic additive, a water reducing additive, and combinations thereof. The instant claims are met by the reference. As for claim 1, the reference teaches a natural pozzolan. The fly ash meets the manmade pozzolan (component (b)) . The water meets the aqueous solution. The composition may further contain calcium chloride and/or accelerating agent and an aggregate. Further the composition may contain a slag such as ground granulated blast furnace slag which could also meet component (b). As for claim 2, the composition may contain calcium chloride. As for claim 4, the reference teaches calcium chloride. As for claim 5, the reference teaches pumice, volcanic ash, diatomaceous earth, silica fume, and calcined shale . As for claim 6, the reference teaches fly ash , metakaolin, ground glass etc. Claim s 1-2, 5-8 , 14 and 94-95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Pernite s et al (US Patent No. 10,450,494 B2. The reference teaches, in claim 1, settable cementitious slurry for use in a subterranean well, said cement slurry comprising cementitious components, said cementitious components consisting essentially of: (a) API Class C or Class H Portland cement; and (b) a pozzolan selected from the group consisting of pumice and mixtures of pumice and fly ash, wherein pumice is at least about 40 wt % of said pozzolan; (c) wherein the weight ratio of said pozzolan to said cement is from about 35:65 to about 70:30; and (d) wherein said pozzolan has an average particle size less than about 20 μm . Claim 14 teaches that said cement slurry further comprises an additive selected from the group consisting of suspension agents, accelerators, retarders, fluid loss additives, dispersants, and free fluid additives. The instant claims are met by the reference. As for claim 1, the reference teaches pumice which meets the natural pozzolan, fly ash which meets the manmade pozzolan and an additive such as an accelerator. As the composition is a slurry it is clear that water is present. Note also that column 8, lines 47, that the base fluid of the cement slurries includes fresh and salt water. As the composition is a slurry it is capable of being poured. Also note that column 18, lines 23+, teaches that the mixture was poured. As for claim 2, column 13, lines 11+, teaches that calcium chloride is the most common accelerator. As for claim 5, the reference teaches pumice. As for claim 6, the reference teaches fly ash. As for claim 7, in the description of the examples found in column 17, lines 48+, recite a curing step. As for claim 8, the reference teaches an amount of natural pozzolan that falls within the claimed range (see, for example, claims 2 and 3. As for claim 14, the amount of the calcium chloride ranges from 2 to 4% (see column 13, lines 11+ ) and based on the amount of the manmade pozzolan the range of amounts of chloride to manmade pozzolan falls within the claimed range. As for claim 94, , based on the components and the process steps, this claim is met. With respect to the formation of a negative-carbon dioxide emitting cementitious material that adsorbs and prevents the emission of carbon dioxide, since the reference teaches the use of the same components, this property is believed to be possessed by the material. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II. As for claim 95, this property is believed to be met by the composition of the reference as the composition is the same. Claim s 1, 3, 5-7 and 94-95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Europe Patent Specification No. EP 3106446 A1 . The reference teaches, in claim 1: Claim 3 teaches: Paragraph [0055] teaches that the mineral admixtures (h) include one or more of the recited components. Paragraph [0060]-[0067] teaches that water can be added at various times during the mixing process. The instant claims are met by the reference. As for claim 1, the reference teaches that at least one of natural pozzolan, silica fume, fly ash, metakaolin, and ground granulated blast furnace slag may be present in the composition. The natural pozzolan meets component (a) and the silica fume, fly ash, metakaolin, and/or ground granulated blast furnace slag meets component (b). The reference teaches that an accelerator may be present as component (i). The composition further comprises an aggregate and may also contain water. After the addition of water the composition is capable of being poured. Note also that claim 1 of the reference also teaches an MgO expansive agent and this could also meets component (b). As for claim 3, sand is used as an aggregate in Table 1. As for claim 5, paragraph [0029] teaches that rhyolite and basalt can be used as aggregates and these would also meet the natural pozzolan. As for claim 6, the reference teaches metakaolin, fly ash, and silica fume. As for claim 7, the reference teaches, in claim 10, a process that meets the instant process. As for claim 94, based on the components and the process steps, this claim is met. With respect to the formation of a negative-carbon dioxide emitting cementitious material that adsorbs and prevents the emission of carbon dioxide, since the reference teaches the use of the same components, this property is believed to be possessed by the material. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition . In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald , 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II. As for claim 95, this property is believed to be met by the composition of the reference as the composition is the same. Claim s 1-6, 31-32, 34, and 83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Canada Patent Specification No. CA 2844395 C. The reference teaches, in claim 1, a hydraulic binder comprising at least one latently hydraulic material and/or at least one pozzolanic material, wherein ternesite is included as an activator. Claim 5 recites that the at least one latently hydraulic material includes ground granulated blast furnace slag and lime-rich fly ash. Claim 6 recited that the at least one pozzolanic material is pozzolanic trass, pozzolanic grog, lime-poor fly ash, shale, pozzolanic artificial glass or any combination thereof. Claim 9 recites that an admixture and/or an additive is included. Claim 10 recites that the composition contains, as the additive, a non-hydraulically reactive material in a range of 1 to 30 % by weight. Claim 11 recites that it contains, as the additive, a non-hydraulically reactive material in a range of 5 to 20 % by weight. Claim 12, recites that the non-hydraulically reactive material is ground limestone / dolomite, precipitated CaCO 3 , Ca(OH) 2 , Mg(OH) 2 , silica fume and/or glass powder. Claim 13 recites that the binder contains, as admixture, at least one setting and/or hardening accelerator having available aluminum in the range of 0.01 to 15% by weight. Claim 16 recites that the component having available aluminum is a soluble alkali/alkaline earth aluminate or aluminum salt. Claim 17 recites that the component having available aluminum is Na 2 Al 2 O 4 , K 2 Al 2 O 4 , aluminum nitrate, aluminum acetate, aluminum chloride, aluminum formate , or aluminum sulphate. Claim 24 teaches the addition of aggregates and water. The instant claims are met by the reference. As for claim 1, the reference teaches a pozzolanic material such as shale and this meets the natural pozzolan of component (a). The composition may contain ground granulated blast furnace slag, lime-rich fly ash, Mg(OH) 2 , and silica fume which meets component (b). The composition may contain an accelerator which meets component (d). The composition is mixed with water. Also the composition may contain an aggregate. As for claim 2, the accelerator may be aluminum nitrate, aluminum chloride or aluminum sulphate . As for claim 3, examples of the aggregates include sand (see example 6). As for claim 4, the composition may comprise a silica fume. As for claim 5, the reference teaches shale. As for claim 6, the reference teaches fly ash and silica fume. As for claim 31, the reference teaches various pozzolans (such as fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, shale etc.) that meets component (a). The reference teaches Mg(OH) 2 that meets component (b). The composition teaches the addition of water. The composition teaches an accelerator which mee ts component (d). Also an aggregate may be present which meets component (e). As for claim 32, the reference teaches that Na 2 Al 2 O 4 may be used as an accelerator and this meets limitation (c). As for claim 3 4, the composition may comprise a silica fume. As for claim 83, as the composition may be the same , this property is believed to be possessed by the material. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald , 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II. Claim s 1-7 and 94-95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Europe Patent Spec i fication No. EP 2337769 B1. The reference teaches, in claim 1, a pozzolan cement composition comprising: a distribution of differently sized pozzolan particles capable of reacting with calcium hydroxide in the presence of water in order to form solid hydration products having cementitious properties and a distribution of differently sized hydraulic cement particles at least partially comprised of tricalcium silicate and/or dicalcium silicate that provides excess calcium hydroxide when mixed with water . Claim 5 recites that the composition further comprises at least one of a fine aggregate, a coarse aggregate, lime, lye, water reducing admixture, accelerant, retardant, hydration stabilizer, rheology-modifying agent, or water. Claim 8 recites that the pozzolan comprises at least one member selected from the group consisting of fly ash, slag, blast furnace slag, natural pozzolans of volcanic origin, trass, volcanic dust, zeolitic compounds, diatomaceous earth, volcanic ash, pumice, heat treated clay, and heat treated shale. Claim 9 recites that the composition further comprises an inert filler such as ground stone, ground granite, ground sand, ground bauxite, ground limestone, ground silica, ground alumina, or ground quartz. As for claim 1, the reference teaches that at least one pozzolan can be utilized which includes natural pozzolans of volcanic origin, volcanic ash, diatomaceous earth, pumice and shale which meet the natural pozzolan and fly ash, and blast furnace slag which meets the manmade pozzolan. The composition may contain an accelerant as well as water. According to paragraph [0097] the compos i tion is used to fill molds and therefore it is pourable. As for the aggregate the reference teaches the addition of sand, ground stone etc. which meets the aggregate. As for claim 2, the reference teaches that examples of the accelerator include calcium chloride or calcium nitrate. As for claim 3, the reference teaches sand and ground stone. As for claim 4, triethanolamine is recited as well as calcium chloride. As for claim 5, the reference teaches pumice, volcanic ash, and diatomaceous earth. As for claim 6, the reference teaches fly ash and slag. As for claim 7, according to the examples, this method is taught. As for claim 94, based on the components and the process steps, this claim is met. With respect to the formation of a negative-carbon dioxide emitting cementitious material that adsorbs and prevents the emission of carbon dioxide, since the reference teaches the use of the same components, this property is believed to be possessed by the material. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition . In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald , 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II. As for claim 95, this property is believed to be met by the composition of the reference as the composition is the same. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim s 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al (US Patent No. 10,457,601 B2) . The reference was discussed previously, above. The instant claims are obvious over the reference. As for claim 3, the reference teaches the addition of an aggregate but fails to recite the types. It would have been obvious to utilize any type of aggregate for cementitious compositions such as sand or gravel without producing any unexpected results. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. As for claim 8, the amount of natural pozzolan overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2144.05. Claim s 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canada Patent Specification No. CA 2844395 C. The reference was discussed previously. The instant claims are obvious over the reference. As for claims 11-12 and 14, based on the amounts of the aluminum nitrate, aluminum sulfate, and aluminum chloride and the amounts of the manmade pozzolan material, the amounts overlap the claimed ranges of amounts and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2144.05. Claim 96 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Europe Patent Specification No. EP 3106446 A1 . The reference was discussed previously. The instant claim is obvious over the reference. As for claim 96, the reference teaches, in paragraph [0069], that in the application, the term concrete element, as used herein, denotes any shaped article comprising or consisting of concrete as defined herein; it is not limited to a specific size. The term thus includes building structures or parts thereof, such as walls, slabs, pavements, beams, columns, foundations, ceilings, façade elements as well as other articles made of concrete, such as containers, vessels, panels, plates. Accordingly as the reference envisions any shaped article the production of a masonry block or paver would have been obvious. Claim s 31, 33, 74 and 83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Europe Patent Spec i fication No. EP 2337769 B1 in view of Jativa et al “Volcanic Ash as a Sustainable Binder Material: An Extensive Review”. The EP 2337769 B1 reference was discussed previously. Further the reference teaches, in paragraph [0068] that magnesium hydroxide can be added to the composition to accelerate the lime-pozzolan reaction. Jativa et al is relied on to show that basalt is a volcanic ash and a natural pozzolan. The instant claims are obvious over the combination of references . As for claim 31, the reference teaches various pozzolans that meet component (a). The reference further teaches that magnesium hydroxide can be added to accelerate the lime-pozzolan reaction. The reference also teaches that water and an accelerant can be added as well as sand or stone that meets the aggregate. As for claim 33, the reference teaches triethanolamine as well as calcium chloride. As for claim 74, the EP 2337769 B1 reference teaches that natural pozzolans of volcanic origin can be used as the pozzolan material and as evidenced by Jativa et al, basalt is a known natural pozzolan of volcanic origin and therefore it would have been obvious to utilize basalt as the natural pozzolan of volcanic origin without producing any unexpected results. As for claim 83, as the composition may be the same, this property is believed to be possessed by the material. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald , 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms . The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-3, 5-7, 31, and 94-95 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,246,995 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the prior patent encompass all of the limitations set forth in the instant claims and therefore are rendered obvious over said claims The prior patent teaches a method wherein the method comprises all of the components set forth in the instant claims. The method includes a pouring and a curing step. The prior patent also teaches a method for reducing carbon emissions comprising the same steps and components. Clai ms 1-3, 5-7, and 31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 21-40 of copending Application No. 19/044,007 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims encompass all of the limitations set forth in the copending application and therefore are rendered obvious over said claims. The copending application teaches a composition that can contain all of the claimed components and therefore renders obvious the instant claims. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and provided that the 112(b) rejection is overcome. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANTHONY J GREEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1367 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday from 6:30-5 . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amber R. Orlando can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3149 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov . Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ANTHONY J GREEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731 ajg March 11, 2026